You are here

Transition Team Conflicts in Sacramento

Tuesday, January 13th, 2009

Robert Wechsler

Sacramento recently had an interesting situation, which set off
accusations of conflicts of interest. According to an article in the
Sacramento Bee, the
newly-elected weak mayor came into office with a volunteer transition
team, consisting primarily of people who have business with the city or
represent people and entities that have business with the city.

The head of the transition team was a partner with a firm that
represents some of the city's big players, including a "company looking
to the city for millions of dollars in assistance to redevelop the
240-acre downtown railyard site; and ... a company pushing a
controversial proposal to transform a rock formation underlying a
neighborhood on the city's southeast side into a storage facility for
natural gas." Other members of this firm were on the transition team,
as well.

Members of the transition team sat in on meetings with high-level city
officials, on topics including the council agenda, labor negotiations,
the railyard site, and the gas field deal. These meetings were closed
to the public, and may have included confidential information (although
the assistant city manager denied this).

One council member has publicly stated his concern about this practice,
and has asked that the city attorney brief the council on conflict of
interest issues. The Bee, in an editorial,
has also expressed concern: "The mayor's unprecedented use of
volunteers creates an unavoidable appearance of conflict. ... Whose
interests does the mayor think [the transition team leader] represents
when he sits in on such meetings – [the mayor's], the city's or those
of his firm's clients?"

The editorial goes on to say, "Volunteers signed conflict-of-interest
statements before participating, but [the mayor] has not made those
statements public. Not even city staff members have seen them. Such
statements are unlikely to reassure business interests who may be
competing against railyard developers for city funds or residents who
oppose the gas storage project."

One thing that can be said in the mayor's favor is that there has been
transparency about the use of these volunteers, and the team was
quickly disbanded.

But what the transition team leader said does not give one confidence in
his ability, or willingness, to understand conflict of interest issues.
He is quoted as saying, "There is no conflict; we were volunteers. None
of us had any kind of representation capacity. We were there strictly
as volunteers assisting the city in getting information, and there was
certainly no kind of technical conflict."

What difference does it make that they were not paid for their efforts?
If anything, professionals offering their services freely could be seen
as giving a gift, and gifts should not be accepted from people who do business
with the city, directly or indirectly.

How can he say that no one on the transition team "had any kind of
representation capacity"? A conflict of interest involves a conflict
between interests, including those of an individual's employers or
clients. Whether they were actively representing a particular client
means very little in terms of whether there was a conflict. In any
event, how could anyone tell? We have only the word of someone with an
apparent conflict.

What does it mean to have "no kind of technical conflict"? Is this an
admission that there was a conflict, only the team members did not technically
violate a particular law? I don't know of any ethics code that deals
with a transition team, but one need only look at the Obama transition to
see how much at least one government official thinks ethics are highly
relevant to limits on who is on a transition team and what each
individual does. After this extremely public attempt to bring ethics to
a transition, it is hard to believe that anyone could act as if
conflict of interest issues in a transition were not both important and
complex.